Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 16:14 Post subject: Is the fundamental paradigm one of conflict?
In a thread in another forum, a member wrote (regarding A-As accusing other A-As of "selling out" for merely being popular among Whites): "try typing "any race" "traitor race and sell-out" in google and you will find articles for and against just about any member of any race in conflict with just about and other race or ethncity."
The statement's parallelism implies that the A-A community is fundamentally in conflict with Whites (defined, presumably, as everyone on the other side of the U.S. endogamous barrier).
"Conflict" denotes battle, fighting, or sharp opposition. By definition, conflict is zero-sum. Either side's gain is the other's loss. So the most effective way to help my side is to hurt the other side.
Cooperation, not conflict has been the fundamental paradigm of liberal capitalism and of parliamentary democracies since about 1826. For nearly two centuries the normal paradigm of group relations has been that the world is not a zero-sum game, that finding common ground benefits both sides and hurts neither.
The exception, of course, is warfare. In war, one side is willing to take damage as long as they can inflict worse damage on the other.
I wonder what fraction of the A-A community truly sees themselves as "in conflict" with everyone on the other side of the endogamous barrier. How many feel that the most effective way to help "their side" is to hurt everyone else? How many A-A's are willing to take damage as long as they can inflict worse damage on everyone else? Most importantly, whatever the fraction, is it getting larger or smaller? Will America see Black suicide bombers any time soon?
Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 18:29 Post subject: Re: Is the fundamental paradigm one of conflict?
fwsweet wrote:
I wonder what fraction of the A-A community truly sees themselves as "in conflict" with everyone on the other side of the endogamous barrier. ?
I can well imagine that many older than 60, who can remember the days of de jure Jim Crow in the South and de facto Jim Crow in the North, might have this view based on a notion that folks on the other side of the endogamous barrier aim to hurt them. Others can cite racial attacks a srecently a sthe early 90s merely for venturing into the "wrong" i.e. white neighborhood where injury and or death came for no other reason than being black. Consider the Yusuf Hawkins and the Howard Beach attacks in NYC which is a supposedly liberal city. Similar hostilities also in Philadelphia and Boston.
Obama spoke lengthily on this on his speech on Race earlier this year when he tried to explain the bitterness of many AAs, especially older AAs towards white America.
Being in conflict doesnt necessarily meaning harming people. It might mean adopting a defensive posture from those who are expected to harm them.
Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 18:40 Post subject: Re: Is the fundamental paradigm one of conflict?
caribj wrote:
I can well imagine that many older than 60 who can remember the days of de jure Jim Crow in the South .... etc.
Non-sequitur. If you want to open a thread on de jure discrimination during Jim Crow, say so and I shall start it for you. Alternatively, if you want to open a thread on de facto discrimination today, say so and I shall start one for you.
The five questions posed by this thread are:
1. What fraction of the A-A community truly sees themselves as "in conflict" with everyone on the other side of the endogamous barrier.
2. How many feel that the most effective way to help "their side" is to hurt everyone else?
3. How many A-A's are willing to take damage as long as they can inflict worse damage on everyone else?
4. Whatever the fraction, is it getting larger or smaller?
5. Will America see Black suicide bombers any time soon?
Please do not try to change the subject again. You are in violation of 3.5. Second warning.
Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 19:25 Post subject: Re: Is the fundamental paradigm one of conflict?
fwsweet wrote:
[The five questions posed by this thread are:
1. What fraction of the A-A community truly sees themselves as "in conflict" with everyone on the other side of the endogamous barrier.
2. How many feel that the most effective way to help "their side" is to hurt everyone else?
3. How many A-A's are willing to take damage as long as they can inflict worse damage on everyone else?
4. Whatever the fraction, is it getting larger or smaller?
5. Will America see Black suicide bombers any time soon?
Please do not try to change the subject again. You are in violation of 3.5. Second warning.
No one is making any claims that AAs wish to harm any one or that we may see black suicide bombers. Why do you raise it? Has Clarence Thomas suggested that there have been attempts against his life?
I fail to see how that is relevant to any discussion on the "sell out" issue if this isnt the case. Certainly Kennedy makes no such claims which I can see from the summaries of his articles that I have read.
I suggest you read Obama's speech on the subject of race and why older blacks feel the way that they do. He outlined the reasons quite clearly.
The generational issue is a fact of life in any discussion of AA attitudes towards whites and towards how other AAs interact with said whites. An older group experienced real hardships and clearly that impacts how they view whites. Younger AAs, particularly from the middle class, have had a very different experience and so think differently.
You can do whatever you want to do. I fail to see how the expereince of de jure and de facto Jim Crow is irrelevant to this topic.
Actually, FS is posing questions. I shall attempt to answer.
1. Don't know...Probably a minority, but a large one based on my experience. Within that minority the feelings can vary from mild to very intense.
2. Not sure what you mean by this. Could you provide examples? I do know that in some black intellectual, political, and activist circles there is this mentality that untoward behavior directed at "mainstream society" is actually revolutionary, beneficial, and justified. If that is what you mean, I'd gather that this is a minority, but sadly an influential minority.
3. I take it you mean embracing self-destructive behavior as long as it is ultimately is seen as getting back at the "mainstream"? If yes, I don't know, but it is probably a minority.
4. Larger in my opinion. As the U.S. becomes more "diverse" the problems besetting certain segments of the AA population remain unchanged or get worse. Despite the promise that more "people of color" will usher in a golden age in the U.S., many AAs of all classes will become increasingly frustrated as they find that these newer residents aren't sympathetic to their historical plight in this country. They will be crowded out as other people make sure their own tribal interests are recognized and addressed, often at AAs’ expense. For some AAs this lack of conviviality will be blamed on white manipulation.
5. Suicide bombers no. But we did see an AA Muslim enlisted man, who was upset with what the U.S. was doing to "his people" in Iraq, throw a grenade into a tent on a military base in Kuwait (I think it was Kuwait) a few years ago. He killed and inured a few people.
What I think will happen and is happening now is an increasing number of AAs will embrace more romantic and/or revolutionary ideologies or ways of thinking that will further dissuade them from realistically grappling problems that will no doubt get worse in the future. I'm not sure if this will lead to suicide bombing, though. Examples in the present of people I think live in such a fantasy world are Randall Robinson, Derrick Bell, and Michael Eric Dyson.
Light-Skinned Cousins In Maryland Pick Different Racial Paths: One Black, One White - Lonnae O'Neal Parker and cousin Kim
Two cousins. Blood connects them; race divides them. They have chosen opposite ends of the color spectrum to identify themselves to the world.
In a recent edition of the Washington Post newspaper, Lonnae O'Neal Parker, a Washington Post staff writer, cites and reflects on a discussion about race she had with her 20-year-old cousin, Kim, whose mother is White and father is Black.
Kim chooses to be White; Lonnae chooses to be Black.
Lonnae says she brought Kim to Maryland from Sandoval, IL, to live with her. "Back home, Kim ran into some trouble. Bad grades, good beer. She came to D.C. to sort it all out. To find a way to get her life back on track. And she came to get in touch with the Black side of her family and possibly herself." Lonnae hoped it would be her "Black" self.
Sandoval, in southern Illinois, had a population of about 1,500. There were 33 people in Kim's high school graduating class, Lonnae writes, "Counting Cousin Kim, there was half a Black."
"When Kim was growing up in Sandoval, they didn't celebrate Black History Month, she says. `Not even Black History Week. We just had Martin Luther King Day.'"
"The town was not integrated. Her father was the only Black person she saw regularly. `And I don't consider him Black,' Kim says. He ran his own sanitation business.
Kim, whose Black side of the family is professional--lawyers, doctors, and Fortune 500 executives--and White side of the family is blue collar and less formally educated, decided a long time ago she was going to be White, according to Lonnae.
"Kim's father had a Black family," Lonnae writes. "His kids were adults when Kim was born. Later, his wife died. And though they are now a public couple, my uncle and Kim's mom never married ... I was shocked to hear that Cousin Kim considered herself White. I found out only because she had to fill out some forms to get into community college. Because I asked her if they had a box for race. Then I asked her what she checked. I was ready to tease her pointedly for checking off `other.'
"I was prepared to lobby -- to drop science about the `one-drop rule.' In slave days, that meant that if you had a drop of Black blood, you were singing spirituals and working for somebody for free. Trying not to get beaten and trying to keep your babies from being sold--even if the massa was their daddy ...
"... But one drop also meant there have always been those who could pass. Who required writ, or testimony, or declaration of intent to make them Black. For whom race has always been a choice.
"Cousin Kim would be one of these. Her eyes are bright blue-gray and her skin has only a suggestion of color. Generations of careful breeding have worked out all her kinks. To White folks, she looks White. And mostly, that is how they treat her. Like one of their own."
"Still, I was ready to cast her lot with the Sisters. You know half-Black is Black, I was ready to say. I was ready for `other.' I wasn't ready for `White.' Or that familiar sting of rejection."
Lonnae faced Blackness early. Lonnae, who grew up in the Chicago area, recalls that she was about 5 years old when she was called a nigger for the first time. She was vacationing in Centralia, IL, where both of her parents were born and five minutes from where Kim grew up.
"Two White girls walked up to me in a park. They were big. Impossibly big. Eleven at least. They smiled at me.
"Are you a nigger?" one of the girls asked ...
I stood very still. And my stomach grew icy. My spider senses were tingling. Where had I heard that word before? `I, I don't know,' I told her, shrugging my shoulders high to my ears.
"The first girl sighed, exasperated. Then the other repeated, more forcefully this time, `Are you a nigger? You know, a Black person?' she asked.
"I wanted to answer her. To say something. But fear made me confused. I had no words. I just stood there. And tried not to wet my panties.
"Then I ran. I turned quickly to look over my shoulder just in time to hear a rock whiz past my ear and plop into a nearby creek."
But Kim revealed that as a Black she faced the pain early in life as well: "When she was in fifth grade," Lonnae writes, "Kim's dad took her to a basketball game. And the bleachers went silent. Then they got whispery. Some folks already knew her dad was Black. Afar that everybody did."
"They used to tease me," Kim said with a shrug. She reluctantly recalled what they said, "Let's see, it went something like this, `Nigger-lips, nigger-lips, nigger-lips.'"
"I hate the N-word," said Kim. "Whenever somebody said `nigger' in class, everyone would turn around and look at me. I hate that word. I hate that the first thing they associate with that word is me."
But that happened years ago. Now "Kim has a friend whose daddy was in the Ku Klux Klan. A poster-sized picture of a finger-pointing Klansman adorned her living room wall," Lonnae writes.
"The father didn't ask if Kim was part Black. Kim didn't tell. She just sat on the edge of the couch with her hands and legs folded. `I kept praying, oh God he's going to see something on me and know that I am mixed,' said Kim. So she stared straight ahead. And she sucked her lips in a reverse pucker the whole time she was there. Trying not to make herself too obvious, she says."
Lonnae, who at one time described herself as "Red, as in Red Bone. Or Yellow, for high Yellow. Or light, bright and damn near White," has struggled with her color identity as well. But now she says she credits White folks for her slow evolution toward racial consciousness.
"I had always been shy," explained Lonnae. "A good student with long hair. Teachers loved me. And always a few Black girls hated me. `white dog,' they called me -- no wait that's what they called my sister. I was a `half white bitch.'"
Lonnae says that back then she had "A Foot in Each World" but couldn't get her head into either. Although slowly, ultimately she chose to be Black and be proud.
"Sometimes I still hear that White girl ask me if I am Black. And now I have an answer.
Pitch.
Cold.
Blacker than three midnights.
As Black as the ace of spades.
I'm so Black that when I get into my car, the oil light comes on."
"Cousin Kim still chooses White not only because she looks White, she says, but `because I was raised White' and because most White folks don't know the difference."
Lonnae had hoped Kim would claim her Black roots, but even after a marathon of Black awareness movies-six parts of Alex Haley's "Roots," three parts of "Queen" and an hour of Howard University's TV Station WHMM's "Black Women on the Light Dark Thing"--and lots of talking and sharing between the two light-skinned cousins whose lives and beliefs are worlds apart, their lives still remain different, still separated by the color line.
Kim has remained safely and securely on the White side of the line while Lonnae has remained planted proudly on the Black side. To see them, either of the ladies could pass for either race; however, their choice is their own.
Lonnae writes of Kim, "She's never tried to deny the fact that her dad was Black. But she has never had the resources or the tools to embrace that side of herself.... On the phone or when she goes home to visit, Kim is still White. But in my house, she is a real root sister."
But, do others ever wonder which one they have chosen, Black or White?
It's a funny thing; most Blacks pride themselves on being able to distinguish Black from White--even across the finest line.
"I have The Sight," writes Lonnae. "Like my mother before me. Like most Black people I know. It is a gift. A special kind of extrasensory perception."
"We can spot some Negro on you from three generations away," adds Lonnae. "We have The Sight because we are used to looking at Black people. Used to loving them. We know the range of colors Black comes in. Because there is always somebody at our family reunions who could go either way ..."
Ultimately Kim chooses to go the White way, and Parker, the Black way.
"I want my cousin to be Black for me ... For all of the niggers that I have been. I want her to be Black because I'm still afraid of casual monsters in White-girl clothes. Not because they might hurt me, but they might hurt my children. Not because they hate. But because they teach 5-year-old Black girls to hate themselves. And Black people of all ages to suck in their lips."
"There are no easy choices, but I think I understand my cousin's. I just had to tell our story to realize it. But understanding and acceptance are not the same. Cousin Kim is White but conflicted, and I still sting with rejection. So alone together, we linger."
So, is Lonnae talking racial war here? Whites are clearly the eternal enemy to her, and Kim has (in her eyes) sided with the "enemy" (Kim's white family ties being irrelevant to black-identified Lonnae). The great contradiction, of course, is that Lonnae works for the very white Washingon Post and her anti-white ravings were further distributed by the very white Seattle Times and ABC News.
Crabs in a basket? She doesn't want Cousin Kim to have the benefits of whiteness even if dragging her into blackness does nothing to raise the status of blacks (On the contrary, it just confirms in the American mind that something is genetically wrong with blacks. How could it not be when even the alleged anti-racists support the "one drop rule").
Note also that racial cruelty from whites is supposed to merit eternal hatred while racial cruelty from blacks is supposed to make the victim even more determined to swear eternal loyalty to blackness.
The article above is from WHITE OUT: THE CONTINUING SIGNIFICANCE OF RACISM edited by Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (Routledge, 2003).
The article by the black-identified Minkah Makalani, "Rejecting Blackness and Claiming Whiteness: Antiblack Whiteness in the Biracial Project," totally distorts the purpose of the Multiracial Movement and personally defames the following activists and organizations/publications: Charles M. Byrd and "Interracial Voice," James Landrith and "The Multiracial Activist," Susan Graham and "Project RACE," Richard Miller and "The Mulatto People," A.D. Powell, George Winkel, Liam Martin.
The article's thesis is that the "Multiracial Project" (no such organization exists) is trying to create a separate "race" and/or (note contradiction) make everyone with any "white blood" white and/or allied with "whites" (who are all presumed to oppress "blacks," naturally) to somehow oppress blacks (in some unspecified manner). The role of "progressives," according to the author," is to stop us because we are supposedly hampering their efforts to get rid of whiteness (by keeping "blackness" and the black-white dichotomy intact????).
___________________________________
This makes it clear where Makalani is coming from.
Quote:
From: Nikitah Imani [mailto:imanino@jmu.edu]
List Editor: "Abdul Alkalimat, H-Afro-Am" <AAlkali>
Editor's Subject: Re: passing: reply to some comments
Author's Subject: Re: passing: reply to some comments
Date Written: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 12:02:24 -0500
Date Posted: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 12:02:24 -0500
> From: Minkah Makalani [mailto:makalani@uiuc.edu]
>
> I agree that viewing the history of individual African Americans
> passing as white, and non-white groups (Jews, Italians, Irish, etc.)
> being racialized as white and enjoying the privileges of whiteness,
> is limited analogy. But in the current historical period such an
> analogy is especially poignant when we consider the growing
> popularity of the push to reclassify Black people with a white parent
> as biracial or multiracial. This is a collective effort by a segment
> of the African American community to become racially non-Black.
> While this is not an attempt to become white, becoming biracial
> (read: non-Black) involves a claim to the privileges of whiteness.
> This draws heavily on the history of African American passing, but it
> is no longer an individual act. Rather, it is a conscious attempt to
> become a new race premised on having a white parent, and in this
> sense the "passing" of Jews or Italians from non-white to whites
> (based on phenotype) is important because it, like the biracial
> identity push, also involved a claim to, and use of, whiteness to
> gain benefits through the continued racial oppression of Blacks.
Last edited by Powell on Wed 06 Aug 2008 05:30; edited 1 time in total
1. What fraction of the A-A community truly sees themselves as "in conflict" with everyone on the other side of the endogamous barrier.
If I had to guess I would say that this percentage correlates with the percentage of Blacks in the "underclass" or in extreme poverty plus the insulated group of pan-African liberation academics and Black American politicians who actively promote race-based/essentialist characterizations of people with SSA ancestry. So, what, 30-40%?
2. How many feel that the most effective way to help "their side" is to hurt everyone else?
I don't think many Black Americans feel this way. What appears to be the case is that many Black Americans hurt themselves most of all.
3. How many A-A's are willing to take damage as long as they can inflict worse damage on everyone else?
Again, I don't think this idea has been a cultural theme in many, if any, Black American cultures/sub cultures. The anger/rage felt because of injustices suffered seems to be turned inward.
4. Whatever the fraction, is it getting larger or smaller?
Curiously, I think the fraction is getting smaller. My rationale is the growing acceptance of cross-color line marriage, increased ethnic/national diversity within the U.S., and opinions of younger Black Americans. I do believe that the growth in this area is larger among Black women and those with more economic advantage, though. There is a quiet but growing feminist movement among Black American women, due largely IMO to their educational gains.
5. Will America see Black suicide bombers any time soon?
Nah - the desperation that produces that level of self-annihilation is culturally alien. I aslo don't see any Western environmentalists setting themselves on fire to protest the import of beef they deem unsafe (as in S. Korea). Will we see violence in urban, poor areas increase and potentially spill over into other areas (more affluent Black, mixed, White areas)? I think so, but I believe that the violent epidemic is turned inward for the most part.
Posted: Fri 20 Jun 2008 16:21 Post subject: "Black" identity is based on hatred and fear of whites
Black identity is so dependent on hatred and fear of whites and "escaping" a forced black identity, that even prominent black journalists are happy to voice their prejudices and make up their own "facts" without challenge. Hutchinson whines that the part-black folks are equally despised by "whites" yet favored by "whites" at the same time. Of course, he doesn't have to worry about his words being challenged. Note that he also politely refrains from "insulting" Hispanics and Arabs by mentioning THEIR sub-Saharan African ancestry (otherwise known as the dreaded "black blood). If "whites" were 1/10 as fanatical about promoting the "one drop" myth as blacks like Hutchinson contend, Hispanics and Arabs would nearly all be "black."
Elite blacks like Hutchsinson tutor white elites in the "one drop" myth (as long as the blacks don't step out of their place and claim politically powerful groups of partial black ancestry like Hispanics and Arabs). Blacks like Hutchinson are the moral authority telling whites that they are "racist" if they DON'T support the "one drop" myth. Then the same blacks turn around and try to frighten naive partially black mixed-race folks by telling them that the "racist whites" won't allow them to be anything but "black" and they need blacks to "protect" them. A protection racket, if you ask me.
Presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama gave the best answer to the question whether he's black, mixed race or something in between. He recently told a Chicago fundraiser crowd that to some he wasn't black enough, and he then promptly added that others say he might be too black. He's right, the knock against him has either been that he is too black or not black enough, not that he is too mixed race or not mixed race enough. Despite his occasional references to his white mother and grandmother, Obama by his own admission has never seen himself as anything other than being black. He says that's been that way since he was 12. It's that way for those whites who flatly say that they won't vote for him because he's black. His Democratic primary losses to Hillary Clinton in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky showed there are legions of white voters who feel that race does matter to them. Few have said that they oppose him because he's mixed race.Yet, the silly debate continues to rage over whether Obama is the black presidential candidate or the multi racial candidate. The debate is even sillier when one considers that science has long since debunked the notion of a pure racial type. In America, race has never been a scientific or genealogical designation, but a political and social designation. Put bluntly, anyone with the faintest trace of African ancestry was and still is considered black, and treated accordingly. Their part white ancestry doesn't give them a pass from taxis refusing to stop for them, clerks following them in department stores, from being racial profiled by police on street corner stops, from landlords refusing to show them an apartment, or being denied a promotion. The mixed race designation doesn't magically make disappear the countless other racial sleights and indignities that are tormenting reminders that race still does matter, and matter a lot to many Americans. Indeed, from the moment that Obama tossed his hat in the presidential rink a year ago, the mantra of the press and the public has been, "Is America ready for a black president?" Not "Is America ready for a mixed race president?" The equally incessant mantra is that Obama if elected will make history as America's first black president not the first mixed race president. That tells much about the still frozen public attitudes and perceptions about race and politics in America. The deepest part of America's racial fault has always been and still remains the black and white divide. This has spawned legions of vile but durable racial stereotypes, fears, and antagonisms. Black males have been the special target of the negative typecasting. They've routinely been depicted as crime prone, derelict, sexual menaces, and chronic underachievers. There are slightly more than 6 million persons that self-identify themselves as mixed race in America. The number of persons with a black and white parent is a minuscule less that one half of one percent.By contrast, African-Americans (mixed or not) number more than forty million in America and make up about twelve percent of the population. The designation then of "mixed race" is so new, benign and amorphous it softens racial attitudes and dilutes racial hostility. It carries none of the negative racial baggage that black or African-American does. This is the big reason that scores of blacks have been frenzied over Obama's candidacy. They have turned out in record numbers in some primaries and have given his candidacy the greatest boost forward. They have been unabashed in saying that they back him with passion and fervor because he is black. It's hard to imagine that they'd cheer him with the same passion if he touted himself as a mixed race candidate. The thrill and pride for them is that a black man could beat the racial odds against blacks and scale the political heights.The stock line is that Obama's candidacy shows how far America has come in that a black man has a real shot at grabbing the top elected spot in the land. No one says that Obama's candidacy shows how far America has come in that a mixed race man can win the White House. If Obama does win the presidency the new line will be that it shows not just how far America has come on race (meaning racial attitudes toward blacks), but that America has finally arrived on race (meaning racial attitudes toward blacks). Substituting mixed race for black would not have the same meaning or significance to blacks or whites. If Obama grabs the White House, he'll claim it as a triumph for all Americans. Many blacks will claim it as a triumph for them. They'll both be right. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a nationally acclaimed author and political analyst. He has authored ten books; his articles are published in newspapers and magazines nationally in the United States. Three of his books have been published in other languages. He is also a social and political analyst and he appears on such TV programs as CNN, MSBC, NPR, The O'Reilly Show, American Urban Radio Network, and local Los Angeles television and radio stations as well. He is an associate editor at New America Media and a regular contributor to Black News.com, Alternet.com, BlackAmericaWeb.Com and the Huffington Post. He does a weekly commentary on KJLH Radio in Los Angeles.
Posted: Fri 04 Jul 2008 09:48 Post subject: Re: "Black" identity is based on hatred and fear of whites
Most of the AAs who see themselves as in conflict with everyone else live in poor, isolated areas and have no exposure to whites aside from police. It's much easier for them to take their anger out by participating in more common criminal activities.
If problems get worse, there might be a rise in black militancy and increased membership in groups like the NOI. If given the opportunity, groups like this probably would carry out terror attacks and feel no remorse for doing it. But I doubt it would be in the form of suicide bombing.
Powell wrote:
Black identity is so dependent on hatred and fear of whites
Likewise, white identity is dependent on hatred and fear of blacks.
Posted: Sat 05 Jul 2008 05:24 Post subject: Re: "Black" identity is based on hatred and fear of whites
BlackHaze wrote:
Most of the AAs who see themselves as in conflict with everyone else live in poor, isolated areas and have no exposure to whites aside from police. It's much easier for them to take their anger out by participating in more common criminal activities.
If problems get worse, there might be a rise in black militancy and increased membership in groups like the NOI. If given the opportunity, groups like this probably would carry out terror attacks and feel no remorse for doing it. But I doubt it would be in the form of suicide bombing.
Powell wrote:
Black identity is so dependent on hatred and fear of whites
Likewise, white identity is dependent on hatred and fear of blacks.
That's not universal among American whites. Most whites see "white" as just the equivalent of "normal." American "black" identity is based on opposition to "whites." The collective black hissy fit over alleged "passing" and constant allegations of "race treason" against independent thinkers should be ample proof of that.
Posted: Sun 06 Jul 2008 02:43 Post subject: Re: "Black" identity is based on hatred and fear of whites
Powell wrote:
BlackHaze wrote:
Most of the AAs who see themselves as in conflict with everyone else live in poor, isolated areas and have no exposure to whites aside from police. It's much easier for them to take their anger out by participating in more common criminal activities.
If problems get worse, there might be a rise in black militancy and increased membership in groups like the NOI. If given the opportunity, groups like this probably would carry out terror attacks and feel no remorse for doing it. But I doubt it would be in the form of suicide bombing.
Powell wrote:
Black identity is so dependent on hatred and fear of whites
Likewise, white identity is dependent on hatred and fear of blacks.
That's not universal among American whites. Most whites see "white" as just the equivalent of "normal." American "black" identity is based on opposition to "whites." The collective black hissy fit over alleged "passing" and constant allegations of "race treason" against independent thinkers should be ample proof of that.
Ok seriously, this is an outrageous statement. If you can acknowledge lack of universality in one group of millions, why not in another? Have you ever considered that one reason why the AA "race police" is so vigilant is precisely because it knows that the group does not really operate as a single collective?
Black and White identity in the U.S. seems to be a dialectic. One can't exist without the other. In this day and age I wouldn't say that either identity is dependent on hatred and fear of the other. Maybe during Jim Crow. Perhaps in pockets of economically disadvantaged Blacks and Whites, but not as collectives.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
